Relativity Error
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Symmetry of BP's economic blowout & scarcity of their product?
Next: De Walls shows, all forces come from charge
From: colp on 24 Jun 2010 21:08 "If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B ..." Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies The text describes the time dilation of a clock that moves from point A to point B. In other words, the moving clock runs slow. If there is no preferred frame of reference then it is just as true to say that the clock is viewed as part of a stationary system and the points A and B are in a moving system which moves at velocity -v. But this cannot be true, because the time for both systems cannot be dilated with respect to each other. This means that there must be a preferred frame of reference.
From: BURT on 24 Jun 2010 21:12 On Jun 24, 6:08 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > "If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, > viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at > A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its > arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved > from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B ..." > > Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies > > The text describes the time dilation of a clock that moves from point > A to point B. In other words, the moving clock runs slow. If there is > no preferred frame of reference then it is just as true to say that > the clock is viewed as part of a stationary system and the points A > and B are in a moving system which moves at velocity -v. But this > cannot be true, because the time for both systems cannot be dilated > with respect to each other. This means that there must be a preferred > frame of reference. The clock moving through space goes slow by speed and by gravity. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 24 Jun 2010 21:29 On Jun 24, 9:08 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > "If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, > viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at > A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its > arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved > from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B ..." > > Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies > > The text describes the time dilation of a clock that moves from point > A to point B. In other words, the moving clock runs slow. If there is > no preferred frame of reference then it is just as true to say that > the clock is viewed as part of a stationary system and the points A > and B are in a moving system which moves at velocity -v. But this > cannot be true, because the time for both systems cannot be dilated > with respect to each other. This means that there must be a preferred > frame of reference. Einstein is incorrect in assuming the clocks at A and B are synchronous to begin with. Everything is with respect to the aether. In order to determine synchronicity you must know your state with respect to the aether. In Einstein's train gedanken, it is correct for the Observer on the train and the Observer on the embankment to conclude the embankment is more at rest with respect to the aether than the train.
From: artful on 24 Jun 2010 21:44 On Jun 25, 11:08 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > "If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, > viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at > A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its > arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved > from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B ..." That's correct .. the famous 'twins' paradox > Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies > > The text describes the time dilation of a clock that moves from point > A to point B. In other words, the moving clock runs slow. Yes. Moving clocks run slow. In this case a clock that WAS in sync with, and comoving with another changes its motion so that it is moving, and so the other clocks measures it as ticking slower. > If there is > no preferred frame of reference There isn't > then it is just as true to say that > the clock is viewed as part of a stationary system and the points A > and B are in a moving system which moves at velocity -v. And initially both clocks are out of sync in that moving in that system, and then one of them stops for a while, whiles the other one catches up with it. > But this > cannot be true, Of course it is true > because the time for both systems cannot be dilated > with respect to each other. Of course they are. But you have to look at what time they read at some given time in some given frame of refernece AS WELL AS the ticking rate. > This means that there must be a preferred > frame of reference. Nope. Only that you look at only half the issues and theory involved.
From: rotchm on 24 Jun 2010 22:09
On Jun 24, 9:08 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > "If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, > viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at > A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its > arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, Correct, as shown by experiments and as predicted from the algebra of SR. >but the clock moved > from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B ..." Thats a way to "say" it. > Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies > > The text describes the time dilation of a clock that moves from point > A to point B. In other words, the moving clock runs slow. "runs slow" is just a way to say/describe it. These words have nothing to do with SR. SR's math is what counts... >If there is > no preferred frame of reference then it is just as true to say that > the clock is viewed as part of a stationary system and the points A > and B are in a moving system which moves at velocity -v. Whatever all that means. Say it with the math.. it will be much clearer. >But this > cannot be true, because the time for both systems cannot be dilated > with respect to each other. "dilated"? Another author-specific word which confuses novices like you. The math on the other hand clears up all misunderstandings. >This means that there must be a preferred > frame of reference. This deduction does not follow from your argument, because, for one, the words you use are not well defined and have no bearing on the algebra of SR. |